A lawsuit met with a lawsuit

JAKA, based in Shanghai, China, is seeking injunctive relief, targeting what it describes as false, misleading, and damaging public statements made by Teradyne.

JAKA's procedural objections

JAKA claims it has not received direct communication from Teradyne Robotics or its legal representatives about the alleged infringement. The company also states it has not seen any legal documents or court notices related to the case, saying it learned of the allegations through Teradyne Robotics' public announcement and subsequent media inquiries.

According to JAKA's legal advisers, as of Sept. 2, no patent-infringement proceedings had been filed or opened against the company — despite Teradyne's public claim of a filed lawsuit.

Teradyne insists the case is real

David Brandt, vice president of research and development and chief technology officer at Universal Robots, confirmed the filing to The Robot Report:

"I can assure you that we have filed the case with the courts in Copenhagen. If [it] has not yet been served to JAKA, it may be due to the time required by the courts, but they should receive it shortly."

On JAKA's legal countermove, Brandt was dismissive:

"In relation to their statements about legal action, we await further information, but we are not concerned. We have every right to defend our intellectual property and will continue to do so."

The substance: copying claims and patent portfolios

JAKA rejects allegations of unlawfully copying Universal Robots' technology or products. The company says it develops its own technology through independent R&D and holds more than 300 granted patents worldwide. Before entering the European market, JAKA commissioned two independent freedom-to-operate analyses, neither of which flagged infringement concerns.

Brandt challenged both defenses directly:

"Regarding their freedom-to-operate analysis, they have apparently not done a very good job if they failed to identify our patents. We also find the number of patents JAKA claims to hold irrelevant to this case. This matter concerns their infringement of our patents. Furthermore, the number of patents is generally irrelevant, as it is not about the quantity of patents but the strength of the patents."

Safety and origin enter the argument

JAKA also pushed back on statements it characterizes as questioning the quality or safety of its products. The company argues that collaborative robot safety depends on the full application, including design, integration, configuration, and risk assessment — not the manufacturer's country of origin. JAKA considers the public dissemination of unsubstantiated and disparaging claims about a competitor's products to be unacceptable business conduct, and says such statements create anti-competitive uncertainty in the market.

For manufacturing professionals weighing cobot arms from either vendor, the takeaway is procedural: the patent merits remain untested in court, while a second legal fight over public statements is now running in parallel.